Appeal No. 96-3021
Application 08/104,452
threaded thereon. At the distal end thereof, the muzzle cap has a
pair of lateral openings or slots (26 or 31) that form a pair of
longitudinally extending diametrically opposed furcations. In
this regard, see particularly, Figures 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Cox.
In determining that appellant's claim 1 is anticipated
by Cox, the examiner, relying upon the definition of "shotgun"
found in the Glossary of Ordnance Terms (cited above), has
concluded that the smooth bore barrel (1) of Cox would be viewed
by one of ordinary skill in the art as being that of a shotgun.
We do not agree. While it is true that the barrel (1) of Cox has
a smooth bore, the riveting and punching device seen therein is
clearly not a "shoulder weapon" as set forth in the definition
relied on by the examiner. Thus, the barrel (1) of Cox, in our
opinion, would not be viewed by one of ordinary skill in the art
as being that of a shotgun, and therefore does not anticipate
the "shotgun barrel," or the combination of a breaching
device/flash suppressor and shotgun barrel as set forth in
appellant's claim 1 on appeal. For this reason, the examiner's
rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Cox
will not be sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007